In Marino v. Ragen, Warden (1947), the United States Supreme Court addressed a petition for habeas corpus by an inmate who claimed that his constitutional rights were violated during his state court trial in Illinois. The petitioner argued that he was denied due process because of inadequate representation and lack of access to transcripts necessary for appeal. However, the Supreme Court dismissed these claims without comment or hearing oral arguments from either side. This decision has been criticized as it did not provide any explanation regarding why the petitioner's allegations were insufficient to warrant further review or how they failed to meet established standards for federal habeas relief.

In the dissenting opinion for Marino v. Ragen, it was argued that the majority's decision to dismiss Marino's petition on procedural grounds failed to address the substantive issue at hand: whether or not his constitutional rights were violated during his state court trial. The dissenting justices believed that this case presented a serious question about due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment and should have been given full consideration by the Supreme Court. They contended that dismissing such cases without hearing them undermines public confidence in justice and fails to uphold constitutional protections for defendants. Furthermore, they criticized their colleagues' reliance on technicalities rather than addressing fundamental questions about fairness and justice in criminal proceedings.